You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Non-Circadian Expression Masking Clock-Driven Weak Transcription Rhythms in U2OS Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0102238 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Hoffmann, Laura Symul, Anton Shostak, Tamás Fischer, Felix Naef, Michael Brunner |
| Abstract |
U2OS cells harbor a circadian clock but express only a few rhythmic genes in constant conditions. We identified 3040 binding sites of the circadian regulators BMAL1, CLOCK and CRY1 in the U2OS genome. Most binding sites even in promoters do not correlate with detectable rhythmic transcript levels. Luciferase fusions reveal that the circadian clock supports robust but low amplitude transcription rhythms of representative promoters. However, rhythmic transcription of these potentially clock-controlled genes is masked by non-circadian transcription that overwrites the weaker contribution of the clock in constant conditions. Our data suggest that U2OS cells harbor an intrinsically rather weak circadian oscillator. The oscillator has the potential to regulate a large number of genes. The contribution of circadian versus non-circadian transcription is dependent on the metabolic state of the cell and may determine the apparent complexity of the circadian transcriptome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 21% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,374,472
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,411
of 194,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,694
of 225,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,389
of 4,624 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 225,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,624 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.